------- Additional Comments From zack at codesourcery dot com 2004-01-24 01:35 ------- Subject: Re: PR 13722 candidate fix
Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 00:47, Zack Weinberg wrote: >> Re-revised patch. > > On the REG/SUBREG issue, I was looking at your latest patch. In the > full context of the previous patch, I see you already handle most of > these issues by having a default switch case that aborts. Yes. I think there are good /a priori/ reasons to assume that we won't ever get SUBREGs here, so I think this is adequate. (A SUBREG in the operand itself could only be paradoxical, and shouldn't survive this far; a SUBREG in the MEM expression would either be paradoxical, and again shouldn't have survived this far, or would take it out of Pmode and therefore indicate a bug elsewhere.) > The only real issue I see here is in the POST_MODIFY code where you > have > + if (GET_CODE (XEXP (offset, 1)) == REG) > ... > + else if (INTVAL (XEXP (offset, 1)) < -256 + 8) > which assumes without checking that the offset is a CONST_INT if it > isn't a REG. I put in an abort to see if this ever happens, but I doubt > that it does. The theory here was that INTVAL would trigger an RTL checking abort if offset wasn't a CONST_INT, so there was no need for an explicit check. I now remember that RTL checking isn't on by default, so an explicit check would probably be wise. > I see you have another modified patch. I can try this when my current > build finishes. I would appreciate that. zw -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13722 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
